On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, CAI Qian <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Wait. There is also a lockep happened before the xfs internal error as well.
> Some other lockdep this time,
This one looks just bogus.
> [ 4872.569797] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 4872.569797]
> [ 4872.576401] CPU0
> [ 4872.579127] ----
> [ 4872.581854] lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
> [ 4872.586637] <Interrupt>
> [ 4872.589558] lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
I'm not seeing that .lock taken in interrupt context.
I'm wondering how many of your reports are confused by earlier errors
that happened.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
